“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” are some of the most famous words from the Declaration of Independence. These are the three basic rights given to the American people and what the citizens of our country have been chasing ever since. If your definition of happiness is 16 ounces of soda, you’re in luck. But if you want one 17-ounce soda, you better find your happiness from somewhere else.
On Thursday, Sept. 13, 2012, Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg’s “Soda Bill” was passed by an eight-person board. This “ban” is going to forbid the sale of any drinks containing sugar over the size of 16 ounces. Movie theaters, restaurants and concession stands are all going to have to change the size of their products. But why?
I don’t know about you, but when I first learned about the Constitution, I do not remember the part where it states that the government gets to decide what we drink and how much of it.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, “any beverage sweetened with sugar or another caloric sweetener that contains more than 25 calories per 8 fluid ounces and contains less than 51% milk or substitute by volume as an ingredient” is not going to be allowed to be served to the citizens of the largest city in the United States. When March 12, 2013, hits, these types of drinks are gone. However, like any rule, there are exceptions. Supermarkets and even some convenience stores will be above the law.
Bloomberg’s “reasoning” is that the obesity rate is too high. So he wants to try to help the American people slim down by telling us what we can and cannot drink. The bill was passed by a unanimous vote by the eight Board of Health members that Bloomberg just happened to appoint to their positions. To make it even worse, right before the final vote, the voting members were given a 20-minute presentation denouncing rebuttals from the critics of this bill.
Obviously, the people of New York are unhappy with the bill. The government stepping in to the private sector is ridiculous and un-American. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government gets to decide what I drink and how much of it I consume. There have been over 6,000 complaints sent to the mayor’s office. There is even a new coalition of people called “New Yorkers for Beverage Choices,” containing a petition over 250,000 citizens signed to eliminate the bill.
As we have seen with the banning of alcohol in the 1920s, banning something that Americans want is just a bad idea. Obviously, this is not as severe as the banning of alcohol, but it can essentially have the same effect. People learned to get around the laws, and alcohol was purchased through the underground economy. In times like these, when our economy is in the dumps, that is the last thing we want. We want to promote business and keep the money in our economy. The United States eventually realized this, and legalized alcohol in 1933.
This bill can potentially hurt small and even medium sized businesses. For example, take smaller market soda or iced tea companies, like Honest Tea. A standard bottled drink produced by Honest Tea is 16.9 fluid ounces. Since these exceed the now legal amount of sugar, they will not be allowed to be sold in the city of New York. But since New York is a huge market, Honest Tea can’t afford not to have their product on the shelves, the losses would be catastrophic. So now Honest Tea must pose the question, should we change the size of our bottles to meet the regulations of this bill? Although New York is a large market, it is only one market. And who knows if in a few years New York will decide that a 16-ounce sugared beverage is still too large and they lower the amount. Honest Tea would have to change their bottle again. A company this size simply cannot afford this. And this isn’t the only company facing these difficulties. We must focus on this idea. This election season, small businesses are a main focus of the economic debate to fix this economy. Imposing unnecessary and harmful regulations such as this have historically never worked as well.
Overall, I personally don’t think this ban will last in the city of New York. With the amount of people opposing and acting against it, I think the government will realize that it hurts more than it helps, and will repeal it, just like prohibition. Even Bloomberg has contradicted himself in this bill. As he said himself, “But, generally, it’s government’s job to tell you the facts of what is bad for you and let you make your own decision.”
Chris McKnight is the head of public relations for the UMass Republican Club. He can be reached at [email protected].
Dan Corrigan • May 16, 2013 at 10:16 pm
I fortunately do not care about the exact size of my personal soft-drink. Nor do i really care about the size of my popcorn box. Unless i run out and want more. Honest. I think the most unfortunate act here is a latent hypocrisy of so called politicians who implement public policy based upon a consensus yet find thousands of complaints because of pious legislation. So. Let’s be realistic. Why in the hell is this even something that they can regulate. Uhm. Micro-politicize much. This is an embarassment to our constitution, our rights, our freedoms, and our futures. Things like this make me wish i was an indian with free use of land and hunting. And water. Near camp. With dogs. And squaws. I think the movie wanderlust sums it up best. “The native americans believed that when one produces a feces…”
billz • Oct 22, 2012 at 4:36 pm
What about banning coffee with cream and sugar. Just as bad for you as soda, if not worse. I bet the hippies would be in an uproar about that.
Brian D. • Oct 8, 2012 at 10:16 pm
John Locke said nothing about God, FYI. Because, unlike you, he realized that no religion ever claimed that there were any such things as “God-given rights”.
Dr. Ed Cutting • Oct 3, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Chris, I hate to tell you this but Bloomberg was elected as A REPUBLICAN. Yep, a REPUBLICAN who was once considered for a national role as A REPUBLICAN. And there is a reason why people like me are no longer affiliated with the Republican Party.
Let me give you a free tutorial in what the GOP used to believe it — John Locke once wrote that humans have inherent God-given rights which, being given by God, can not exist at the whim of any other human. He believed that each individual had an inherent right to his/her/its own life, liberty and property.
The word “property” had two meanings back then much as “man” has two meanings today — this was the era of minimum property ownership requirements for voting and Jefferson in particular did not believe that only the rich had rights. (I remember when the GOP believed that — not so sure now.) And hence you might have learned this as “Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness.”
The Democrats, on the other hand, are from the tradition of the French Revolution, “liberty, fraternity & equity.” Group think, group rights, and La Gilbertine.
mason • Oct 2, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I think the underlying attempt is to control obesity which is an increasing problem, is predicted to increase and will cost our country hundreds of billions over the next decades in increased insurance costs, healthcare costs, an increase in preventable illness and loss in economic productivity.
Targeting soda in theory is a good idea due to the very high amount of calories per serving. However a consumption tax on one high calorie snack alone will have no effect on intended individual who is overweight or at risk as they will continue their poor lifestyle choice. So in that effect I think the government needs to do two things, roll out a national program that focuses on wellness with government incentives for insurance companies to include wellness programs(diet/exercise) and if the government was very serious to implement calorie reduction standards for all processed foods.
Processed food meaning what is not considered vegetables or fruits often have a very high amount of calories because of the addition of fats and sugars to increase the taste and also to reduce cost. Forcing food suppliers to either invent low calorie fat/sugar substitutes or change how they produce their food would make a big impact but could potentially cause large increases in the price of food.
mike • Oct 2, 2012 at 5:56 pm
It’s called being a parent. Also, nice satire piece. You are so off base it is not even funny. The idea that the government can tell people how big of a soda they can huy is ludacris.
Josh Steinberg • Oct 2, 2012 at 4:18 pm
No, Mike, I am not kidding. I think the government playing the role of big brother in this instance is respectable. A lot of people are naive and buy into the advertisements that they are constantly exposed to. This is especially true for little kids, who advertisers know have heavy influence on how their parents spend their money.
As for what you call a “sweeping ban”…you realize you can still buy 16 oz soda, right? Deal with it. You deserve to have to buy two if you want to consume that much. And people wonder why the cost of our health care is out of control. It’s because of people like you who take their freedoms and abuse them without considering the long-term effects. Soda is one of the worse products you can consume. It’s especially horrifying because it’s clearly targeted towards children.
Let your children drink it and have fun paying their dentist bill, and the rest of their medical bills for that extent, because with the mentality you provide I highly doubt you will regulate any sort of health-conscious guidance on them.
mike • Oct 2, 2012 at 11:00 am
You’re kidding right? You are trying to equate a parent raising their child to a sweeping ban on what individuals including adults can do with their free choice. It is not the role government to regulate serving sizes anywhere other than in prisons. This is a rediculous initiative that undermines the intelligence and free choice of the people of new york, and can be added to the list of reasons why nyc is becoming the fastest growing nanny state in the US.
Josh Steinberg • Oct 2, 2012 at 9:53 am
Mike- Did your mother (or guardian) ever tell you what you can and can’t put in your body while you were a young child? Why didn’t you tell her she was overstepping her boundary as your guardian? Better yet, tell her now that the way she brought you up was nonsensical and un-American.
This law is brilliant. If you have ever been to New York City, you will notice the unhealthy by the masses. You will notice the homeless by the masses. You will notice those who you would consider ‘trouble-makers’ by the masses.
A lot of these people got to this point because of the lack of proper guidance from a reliable authority. Nobody presses children at a young age to pick up a bottle of water instead of a bottle of soda. On the contrary, they are living in a world submersed in advertisements telling them the exact opposite. Isn’t that un-American?
I, as a New Yorker, applaude Michael Bloomberg to the fullest extent. The city is in shambles but this is a major push in the right direction.
mason • Oct 2, 2012 at 9:16 am
Oh wow taxes on sugary drinks what an important and pressing issue, the future of our freedom is at stake!
mike • Oct 2, 2012 at 8:59 am
Traffic laws are for the protection of others from another individual. Telling people what they can and can’t put in their body is.not common sense, its rediculous overstepping by government, and is absolutely un-American.
Mike
Brian D. • Oct 2, 2012 at 7:41 am
The Constitution also says absolutely nothing about the government enforcing speed limits, arresting you for driving while drunk, or limiting your ability to drive the way you like by putting up street signs and traffic lights. So, by your reasoning, are speed limits, DUI laws and traffic lights also “ridiculous and un-American”? Should we have a group called “New Yorkers for Driving Choices” to campaign for the right to drive however we like? No, of course not. These are common-sense restrictions to prevent people from doing stupid things on the road. Likewise, the new soda law is a common-sense restriction to prevent people from putting themselves on a fast track to obesity. I don’t like Bloomberg, but this time he’s right.
Mike • Oct 1, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Unfortunately this is perfect symbolism of the state of the so called mainstream conservatives. A long fall from the idea that they would stay out of your life.
Mike